Concern as Netanyahu Fails to Reject ‘2nd Disengagement’

Former Yesha Council head worried at two ‘under the radar’ statements on Disengagement-style withdrawal.

By Maayana Miskin

First Publish: 3/9/2014, 3:13 PM

Illustration: Girls evicted from Gush Katif

Flash 90

Dani Dayan, the international relations representative of the Yesha Council, which represents Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, voiced concern Sunday over two statements by Israeli leaders that seemed to support unilateral Israeli withdrawals from parts of the Judea-Samaria region.

Dayan, a long-time Likud activist, noted that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and MK Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) both made statements in weekend interviews that indicated a willingness to give up large parts of Judea and Samaria.

Both statements “slipped under the radar,” he warned in a post to his Facebook page.

“The Prime Minister was asked about a unilateral withdrawal and his awful – and concerning – response was ‘the time has not come to talk about that,’” Dayan wrote.

“The time hasn’t come?! Of course the time has come. The Prime Minister should have ruled out this terrible idea completely,” he declared.

“Netanyahu’s evasive response is worrisome,” he added.

Netanyahu’s predecessor as head of the Likud party, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, carried out the controversial “Disengagement plan” – the Israeli unilateral withdrawal, in 2005, from Gaza and northern Samaria, which was accompanied by the forced expulsion of Israeli residents from both regions. Sharon abandoned the Likud party and formed his own party, Kadima, after facing internal opposition to the plan.

Dayan also expressed concern over views voiced by MK Shaked. “In an interview in Maariv and in Makor Rishon she talked about a scenario in the distant future and proposed that Area C be annexed to Israel while ‘in Areas A and B there be a confederation with Jordan,’” he wrote.

“Area C” refers to parts of Judea and Samaria where Israel has military and administrative control, and where all Israeli communities are located, while in areas A and B the Palestinian Authority has partial or full control.

Shaked’s idea for a confederation “is one form of rule – one of many – of a state,” Dayan said. “Under the proposal Shaked suggested, there would be foreign sovereignty in the heart of the land of Israel, a Jordanian-Palestinian state,” he argued.

“What she said is a serious mistake. ‘No foreign rule west of the Jordan River’ – this must be our diplomatic rulebook,” he wrote.

In conclusion, Dayan noted, “I have great esteem, and even personal friendship, with these two figures, with Netanyahu and Shaked. But the truth must be said: these two statements need clarification, or even better, retraction.”